If any competitive shooting game should have rampant one-hit kills, I feel like it should be this game. I feel like sniping should be extremely challenging, but at the same time extremely lethal. I'm all for traveling projectile that kills on hit for head or torso.

What about technologically-induced biological immortality? This sort of scientific breakthrough would probably only be available to the financially elite who could afford such procedures, whatever they may be.

These people might outlast others who succumb to sickness, old age, etc.
But maybe they'd die of boredom.

I understand this point, but I think you might be conflating "family" with "creation." Paternally-derived surnames are classically reserved for children born in wedlock, not piecemeal dead body parts that you shock back to life.

I have read the book. Why am I acting weird by arguing a literary point in a /r/books post?

Look, the original source material has the creature as being nameless. So any story inspired by Shelley's work doesn't have to be an exact replica, I get it. I'm asking a question here. I think I've brought up a reasonable, easy-to-understand objection as to why the creature would not call itself Frankenstein. The responses are:

Did you even read the book? Seriously?

and

The intelligence and reason to see past the pettiness of superficial rejection and embrace the knowledge of his origin.

Superficial rejection? The creature was rejected by everyone he came across. He sought vengeance against his creator. He killed innocent people, which hurt him because he felt himself to be a virtuous person, just to cause Frankenstein misery. Realizing in the end that, despite his intelligence and virtuous ideals, he has tainted himself with his vicious crimes, he leaves to throw himself over a pyre.

How is this superficial rejection? How did he see past its pettiness (by the way, how is it petty to be a universally shunned being with no potential for love or human connection)?

Why would he need a surname? Bastard children don't have the surnames of their fathers and they move around in the world just fine. This is a god damn cobbled-together creature that was shunned and reviled by its creator. Why on earth would it name itself after him?

This take on the story involves a far more human monster. He's taken the name of his 'father.' So yeah, get your facts straight before making angry youtube videos. It's a story about the monster, after hundreds of years, coming to terms with his dual human/monster identity.

In other words, it's the same dynamic of Shelley's book, except the monster decides to name himself after the person who created and shunned him?

They may be "one" in certain senses, sure, but Victor doesn't give the monster the name Frankenstein in the source material. It would almost add a sense of familial legitimacy to the monster if it were to share its creator's name. Instead, Victor experiences immediate revulsion.

The monster gets sore and starts killing everyone that Victor loves. He's more like a bastard son/doppelganger mixed into one. Even with your explanation, I don't understand why the monster would/should have Victor's family name.

Literally no one has said that. In fact, most people who even mention his house are complimenting it. It is, indeed, a beautiful house from what I can glean.
Are you a rich douche or something? I don't understand all the animosity.

After Goma's interview was broadcast, it was mistakenly reported (even by the BBC itself, on Radio 4's Broadcasting House) that Goma, who moved to England from Congo in 2002, was a taxi driver. In fact, he does not drive a car.[5]
Soon after his appearance, there was some speculation that Goma was in Britain illegally, having overstayed a tourist visa, and that he might be deported from the country.[6] On 25 May 2006, it was announced that celebrity publicist Kizzi Nkwocha had begun representing Goma[7] and that Goma's apparent visa problems had already been resolved three years earlier, allowing him to live and work in the UK indefinitely.[8]